Search

In contrast to recent policies in the United States, immigration reform in Canada, during the past decade, has resulted in one of the most transformative periods in Canada’s immigration history. This article examines these changes, against the comparative backdrop of American inaction. These include changes affecting the three classes of legal permanent residents—economic, family, and refugee—as well as temporary foreign workers and foreign students. Canadian citizenship rules have also been refocused from citizenship as a “right” to citizenship as a “responsibility.” The article illustrates the advantages of the Canadian system, but cautions against overmanagement, centralization of decision-making power, and the loss of Canada’s welcoming reputation. The Canadian system, while not perfect, is efficient and should be able to successfully adjust to future problems that arise, provided that the Canadian public has sufficient input in policy decisions. Given a more complex and cumbersome US immigration policy system, comprehensive immigration reform is not likely to occur if partisanship prevails. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

For many Japanese people, the 49th parallel was only a line on a map, yet there were differences for the Japanese residents in the United States and Canada. The two nations had different concepts of citizenship and constitutions but, in what has been called “hemispheric orientalism,” prejudice knew no border. Both countries severely restricted immigration from Japan. In the United States, immigrants, the Issei, were aliens ineligible for citizenship. Thus, states could deny their access to commercial fishing and the right to own or lease land. Because the American constitution bestows full citizenship on the native-born, their American-born children, the Nisei, could vote and acquire land, but experienced discrimination especially in employment. On paper, the Canadian Issei had more civil rights since they could become naturalized but this provided few advantages apart from the rights to own land and to fish commercially. The Canadian Nisei had no more rights than their parents. In British Columbia, where 95 percent of the Japanese lived, they could not vote and provincial laws and customs denied their access to many occupations. During the Second World War, both nations required all the Nikkei to leave the Pacific Coast, incarcerated some, severely restricted the mobility of others, and proposed to “repatriate” many of them to Japan. Drawing mainly on the previous scholarship which has examined specific themes, time periods, or comparisons, this article offers an overview of how between the 1890s and the 1940s the effects of prejudice varied more in detail and timing than in principle even though formal consultation between the two nations was sporadic. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]